The main legal point established in the judgment is that the evidence adduced by the management was sufficient to prove the misconduct against the workman, and the Workman's past record of repeated censures and suspensions for similar allegations was considered in reaching the decision.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. - Brief Facts

1. The present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 filed by Petitioner challenges the impugned award passed by the ld. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Karkardooma Courts (hereinafter 'Labour Court') dated 2nd January, 2010 in ID No. 285/08/98 titled Delhi Transport Corporation v. Shri Shyam Sunder. Vide the said award, the Labour Court reinstated the Respondent/ Workman (hereinafter 'Workman') and awarded him continuity of service along with Rs. 80,000/- with 12% interest from the date of the award till realization. The operative portion of the award reads as under:

'The removal of the workman Sh. Shyam Sunder from service is held as unjustified. Consequently the management is directed to reinstate the workman, with continuity of service. Workman is also entitled for a sum of Rs.80,000/- (Rs. Eighty Thousand only) which the management shall pay within 30 days after publication of this award. In default the workman is also entitled 12% interest per annum from the date of award till realization.'

2. A brief background of this case is that the Workman joined the Petitioner/Delhi Transport Corporation (hereinafter 'Corporation') as a Conductor on 10th May, 1984. There were various complaints against the Workman which is reflected in the past conduct statement which has been placed on record. However, in so far as the present case is concerned, the case set up by the Corporation against the Workman is that on 2nd November, 1989, the Workman issued an old ticket bearing no. 199-27017 to a passenger- Mr. Balwant Singh, in lieu of the prescribed fare of Rs. 0.50, which was not matching with the series of unpunched tickets that were in his custody. He was also found to be in possession of excess cash amounting to Rs.5.70/-. When the Ticket Inspector raided the bus and realised that a false ticket had been issued to the Passenger, the statement of the Passenger and the Workman was recorded by a member of the checking staff, namely, ATI - Mr. Tej Bhan and their signatures were appended on the statement. According to the Corporation's case, upon being confronted in the Passenger's presence, the Workman admitted to have committed the mistake of having issued an old ticket to the passenger after picking up the same from the floor of the bus.

3. A copy of the checking report bearing No. 039246 dated 2nd November, 1989 was filed by the ATI Mr. Tej Bhan. The ATI filed a challan along with statements. A charge sheet was issued to the Workman on 17th November, 1989 under the Road Transport Corporation Act 1950 read with the Delhi Transport Amendment Act 1971. The Workman in his reply dated 24th November, 1989 to the chargesheet denied all the allegations levelled against him. The charge sheet having been issued, enquiry proceedings commenced against the Workman on 19th December, 1989. A copy of the ticket was also annexed with the charge sheet. In the enquiry proceedings, the concerned ATI, Mr. Tej Bhan appeared and his statement was recorded. He was also cross-examined by the Workman. The Workman chose not to present himself for any statement or for cross-examination in the enquiry proceedings. He also made a statement that he does not wish to record the statement of any other members of the checking staff. During the enquiry proceedings, the Workman did not produce any witness in his defence. He however claimed that the concerned Passenger ought to be called. The said Passenger, however, did not appear before the enquiry officer. The enquiry report held that the charges against the workman were proved. The enquiry on 30th January 1990 concluded that the statement, the old ticket bearing no. 199-27017, and the unpunched ticket no. 899-32302 bears the signature of the Workman and accordingly he was terminated on 3rd May, 1990.

4. After terminating the Workman, the Corporation filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter, the Act) in which, an initial or